Item P4BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September
20 2006
Division:
Growth Mana emeit
Bulk Item: Yes
No X
Department:
Planning
Staff Contact Person: Aref Ioulani"Jose Papa
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
An ordinance to amend Section 9.54, Definitions, of the Monroe County Code, amending the definition of accessory
uses or accessory structures and adjacent landowner, amending Section 9.5-256, Aggregation of Development, to
create conditions for aggregation of lands, and Section 9.5-349 Shoreline setbacks, to permit docking facilities on
lands within 500 feet of the land containing the principal structure.
1" of 1 required Public Hearin
ITEM BACKGROUND:
This could have significant neighborhood impact by allowing docks on vacant lots 500 feet away from the owner's
house.
This item was reviewed by the Development Review Committee on April 25, 2006. This item was reviewed and
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on May 24, 2006,
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
The .Board of County Commission continued this text amendment from the July and August BQCC meeting.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
TOTAL COST: N/A.
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
BUDGETED: Yes No
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes N/A No _ AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty X OMB/Purchasing Risk Management_
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Ty Symros i
DOCUMENTATION: Included. X Not Required
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
W:IGROWTH MANAGEMLAPLDELArnoidnnen(sVIextAniendni^nts'2006 928agga-egation-Agciida Summary.doc Page I of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Aref Joulani, Director, Planning and Environmental Resources Department
FROM: Jose Papa, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager
RE: Text Amendment -Adjacency, Aggregation, and Docking Facilities
DATE: August 28, 2006
MEETING DATE: September 20, 2006
Background
Staff received direction from the Planning Commission to draft language that would
clarify the definition of Adjacent and Contiguous lots for purposes of aggregation.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission directed staff to analyze the possibility of
permitting docks on adjacent lots or parcels. Staff has received correspondence from
citizens regarding the inclusion of certain items into the proposed amendment as well as
the criteria for permitting docking facilities on adjacent/contiguous lots. Staff has
included such public input as part of the proposed text amendment.
One of staffs main concerns about permitting dock facilities on non -adjacent lots is the
possible insertion of nuisances into neighborhoods. It is likely that docking facilities
approved under this section are more likely to be used by persons who do not live within
the neighborhood (owners of such docking facilities are more likely to let other people
use the docking facilities, since these docking facilities are not directly in the owners'
backyard). Such use would bring additional traffic or intrusion. into the neighborhood.
Furthermore, docking facilities, if permitted on non -adjacent Tier I lands would have
environmental impacts on environmentally sensitive lands. In order to address these
concerns, staff has drafted language designed to mitigate these possible impacts from the
permitting of dock facilities on non -adjacent lands.
Discussion
I. Definition of Adjacent and Contiguous.
The definition of adjacent and contiguous has gone through different iterations since the
original draft of the proposed ordinance. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff
recommended a definition of adjacent lot that would make any lot/parcel within 500 feet
of each other to be "adjacent".
W:IGROW' TIMANAGEMENP'LDRAn dmeiitszi'exiAiiiei)dmeiits0€Y06092AAggregation-Staffreport.doc Pagel of4
During the BOCC public hearing for the PC -version of the text amendment, the Board
raised the issue that the definition of adjacent and contiguous would create confusion
since in the vernacular, adjacent and contiguous have synonymous meanings and
connotations, and that the proposed amendment did not clarify the meaning of the terms.
To clarify the difference between "adjacent and contiguous lots", staff proposes
amending the definition of adjacent so it is clear that intervening roads (except US-1),
right-of-way, easement, or a canal does not destroy the adjacency of lands.
Staff has not amended the definition of contiguous. Under the existing code, contiguity
means the sharing of a common border at more than a single point of intersection and is
not interrupted by utility easements. This definition for contiguous is distinguished from
the definition of adjacency since roadways or canals breaks the contiguity of parcels.
II. Aggregation of Development
To clarify which lands may be aggregated for development, staff has proposed the
following conditions in order for lands to qualify for aggregation:
• Must share at least 50% or more of the border of the smaller lot or at least
50 linear feet
• are not separated by US-1 or roads with more than 2 two driving lanes
• are not separated b intervenin natural or manmade waterways,
• if the aggregated lands are se arated by a road the area of the road can not
be used in computing density for housin o en space or floor area unless
the road has been abandoned
• must share unity of title
• development will take lace in the least environmentally sensitive areaper
§9.5-345(1),_ and
• In IS and URM subdivisions onl one unitper lot is ermitted.
It is important to note that under the proposed amendment lands separated by roads (other
than. US-1 or greater than two driving lanes) may qualify for aggregation. Once parcels
are aggregated, the parcels would be treated as one unified parcel for the purposes of
development.
One significant result of this amendment would be that accessory uses such as storage
sheds, parking of boats, swimming pools or other typical accessory uses may be
permitted on a lot or parcel across the street from a principal structure.
111. Permitting of docking facilities on "adjacent" lots.
Under the current code, "docking facilities may be constructed on adjacent parcels, under
the same ownership and within the same zoning district, provided that a legally
established principal use and/or structure exists on one (1) parcel".
w:IGROWT i MANAG1.`1M NT",LDR Amendments next Amentiments200(i082S Agnregation-Staff reports(! is Page 2 of 4
As directed by the planning commission, staff has drafted language that would permit
docking facilities on lots not directly adjacent to the principal lot. It was the intent of the
Planning Commission to analyze the feasibility of permitting decks on lots that were not
directly next to the principal lot. In. response, staff has drafted language that docking
facilities may be permitted on lots/parcels with. 500' of the property line of the principal
structure under certain conditions.
These conditions are established to mitigate the possible impacts of permitting; docks
beyond the principal lot. Some of these anticipated impacts include:
• Lots will be developed withonly the docking facility (no principal structure) on.
the subject property.
• The owners of the dock lots will now request water and electric service.
+ Dock owners will likely request the construction of other accessory uses such as
shower facilities, storage sheds, or dock boxes to store fishing equipment, life
vests, or other boating equipment.
• The construction of docks will require clearing of properties to provide access for
construction of docks and after construction for access to the docking facilities.
• Other amenities such as barbecue grills, picnic tables, etc, would be placed on the
lots containing the docking facility.
• Unless expressly prohibited, the construction of docking facilities could be in a
more restrictive zoning district or Tier designation. (i.e. principal structure is in
Tier 3 and accessory dock lot is in Tier 1).
• If permitted on non -adjacent Tier I Lands, construction of docking facilities would
Have environmental impacts on environmentally sensitive lands.
• Intrusion of additional traffic from "non -neighborhood" residents who will use the
docking facilities. As outlined before, it is likely that docking facilities approved
under this section, are more likely to be used by persons who do not live within the
neighborhood (owners of such docking facilities are more likely to let other
people use the docking facilities, since these docking facilities are not directly in
the owners' backyard).
Based on the anticipated impacts from these docking facilities, staff proposes that the
conditions for a dock under this section include the following:
• Lots/parcels must be under common ownership,
• A unity of title must be recorded,
• The principal structure is a lawfully established dwelling unit,
• Water service may be provided by a single hose bib,
• No electric service will be permitted,
• Entrance to dock must be gated and locked when not in use,
• Docking facilities in Tier I lands under this section, would be limited only to
those Tier 1 lands that are scarified., disturbed and would not require additional
clearing for access, and
W:i(:;R0W'T1 MANAGEMEN"C'I-DR AmenidmentslText Anicndtttcnts"20 60828Aggregation-Stafl'repoil.doc Page 3 of 4
To inform the neighboring properties of requests for docking facilities under this
sub -section, the approval of docking facilities will require public notification of
proposed approval to the surrounding property owners and could be appealed to
the Planning Commission.
Other conditions that the Board may consider to mitigate the effects of these docking
facilities include:
• No uses other than a docking facility will be permitted on a contiguous lot,
• No parking spaces will be provided on the lot containing the docking facility,
• Clearing of property will be limited to the minimum required to provide access to
the docking facility, and
• Lots to be aggregated must be located in the same subdivision.
Recommendation.
Staff provides the following information to inform the BOCC of possible impacts from
the proposed text amendment. Staff has included language that the BOCC may consider
to mitigate some of the possible impacts of the text amendment.
W.`kGROWTH Aincndments'2100f 0$2SAg,.regation-Staff repurt.doc Page 4 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. - 2006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE
DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY USES OR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, AND ADJACENT LANDOWNER IN §9.5-4
OF THE MONROE COUNTY CODE; AMENDING §9.5-256
AGGREGATION OF DEVELOPMENT, TO CREATE
CONDITIONS FOR AGGREGATION OF LANDS AND §9.5-
349 SHORELINE SETBACKS, TO PERMIT DOCKING
FACILITIES ON LANDS WITHIN 500 FEET OF LAND
CONTAINING THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE UNDER
CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND CREATING AN APPROVAL
PROCESS FOR SUCH REQUESTS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following Findings
of Fact:
1. A need has been recognized to distinguish between adjacent and contiguous
lands in the definitions of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
2. A need has been recognized to clarify which lands qualify for aggregation of
development under the LDRs.
3. The current LDRs do not provide definitions or procedures for aggregation that
meet the needs of Monroe County residents.
4. At the direction of the Planning Commission, the Planning and Environmental.
Resources Department was directed to create an amendment to the LDRs, that would
create a mechanism to allow docks on. non -adjacent lots.
5. Federal and State law grants power to Monroe County to regulate and restrict
the use of land and buildings in order to promote the safety and general welfare of its
citizens.
6. Monroe County has adopted land use goals, policies, and objectives in a
comprehensive plan to guide policy on building and land use regulations, and to promote
health, safety, and general. welfare.
T The provision of this ordinance is consistent with the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan and the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys
Area of Critical State Concern.
W;AGT2OWT Amcndments�;FoxtAmendments`;200t)OS28Agg�•egation-ordiiaance.doc Page I of S
S. The Monroe County Planning Commission held a duly advertised public
hearing on May 24, 2006 and made its recommendations to the board.
NOW, THEREFORE. HE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONIERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES are presented in str°1-�gl to indicate deletions and
underline to indicate additions.
Section I
AMEND §9.5-4 Definitions as follows:
(A-2) Accessory uses or accessory structures means a use or structure that is
subordinate to and serves a principal use or structure; and
a) is subordinate in area, extent and purpose to the principal use or structure
served; and
b) contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of occupants of the
principal use or structure served; and
c) is located on the same lot or on contiguous lots under the same ownership
and in the same land use district as the principal use or structure;
d) Accessory uses include the utilization of yards for home gardens provided
that the produce of the garden is for noncommercial purpose_ howeve
e) In no event shall an accessory use or structure be construed to authorize a
use or structure not otherwise permitted in the district in which the principal
use is located, and in no event shall an. accessory use or structure be
established prior to the principal use to which it is accessory.
t) Accessory uses shall not include guest units or any other potentially
habitable structure. Habitable structures are considered to be dwelling units
as defined below in this section.
(A-3) .fidjucent lundsHit,,Her means an A'ner- of land sharing a boundary with another
land. For purposes of the pla this Chapter, lands shall be considered ad'acent des ite an
intervening road (except ITS-, right-of-way, easement or canal. shall flot. destroy the
adjacency of4he4w*+24-paf "--
Section 2.
AMEND § 9.5-256. Aggregation of Development., as follows:
Any development which has or is a part of a common plan or theme of development or
use, including but not limited to an overall plan of development, common or shared
amenities, utilities or facilities, shall be a0gre-ated for the purpose of determining
permitted or authorized development and compliance with each and every standard of
this chapter and for the purpose of determining the appropriate form of development
review.
W:AGR0W"1-I1 NiANAGEN1EN i d_[) { Atlien dnlent5'.l cxt .1at enc�tnenis`:2C1f)60823, t ��tign-Ord inance.doe Page 2of 5
Lands to be aggregated shall meet the following conditions:
a) share at least 50% or more of the border of the smaller lot or at least 50 linear
feet,
b) are not se crated by US-1 or roads with more than 2 two driving lanes
c) are not se arated b • intervenin natural or manmade waterways,
d) if the aggregated lands are separated by a road the area of the road can not be
used in. computing densit . for housing, open space or floor area unless the
road has been abandoned
e) must share unit of title
f) development will take place in the least environmentally sensitive area per
�9.5-34af), and
g) In IS and IRM subdivisions only one unit per lot isermitted.
Section 3
AMEND § 9.5-349. Shoreline setback as follows:
(in) Docking Facilities: Docking facilities shall be permitted, provided that:
,
within the same zoning ,
pfovided
i'iiuvu be r-emoved and the shoreline fe4efe4-,
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9.5-4(A-21 docking facilities
may be Dermitted on lots/parcels within. 500 feet in a straight line from the
propertypLoperty line of the principal structure under the following.conditions:
a the lots/parcels are under common ow.►aershi
a Lnfty of title is recorded
c the Principal structure is a lawfull y established dwelling unit
d water service may be -provided by a single hose bib
e no electric service will be permitted,
entrance to dock must be gated and locked when not in use
if proposed docking facility is on Tier 1 designated land property
must be scarified or disturbed and no clearin of native habitat can be
required for access,
(h in the event that ownershi of the lands containin the dark is severed
from the land containing the principal use/structure, the dock must be
removed and the shoreline restored
W:1GROWTH MANAGEMENT LDR Amendmews\Text rArneildinents'}20060828Aggregati0it-Ordinance doc Page 3 of 5
A lications for a docking facility under this Section shall be consistent with. the
pro cess ublic notification requirement, and appeal process outlined under
Section 9.5-523.
Section 4. Severability.
If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or provision of this Ordinance
shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment
shall not affect, impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this Ordinance, but the
effect thereof shall be confined to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or
provision immediately involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree
shall be rendered.
Section 5.Conflicting Provisions.
In the case of direct conflict between any provision of this ordinance and a portion or
provision of any appropriate federal, state or county law, rule, code or regulation., the
more restrictive shall apply.
Section 6. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida,
but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Department of Community
Affairs or Administrative Commission approving the ordinance pursuant to Chapter 380,
Florida Statutes.
Section 7. Transmittal. for Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated into the Code of
Ordinances of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an addition or amendment thereto and
shall be appropriately numbered to conform to the uniform numbering system of the
Code.
Remainder of Page Left Blank
w:',GR0W1T1 MANAUI MENTADR Anaendments'\Text Annendinerntsl2006082$Eg4regatioi-Ordinarice.doc Page 4 of 5
Adjacency, Aggregation, and Docking Facilities Text Amendment
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida at a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2006.
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Mayor Pro Tern Dixie Spehar
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Mario Di Gennaro
Commissioner Glenn Patton
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE,
CLERK
MI
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor, Charles "Sonny" McCoy
COUNTY
01
Attorney
WIUROWTH MANAGFMk' NT�LDR. Amendpnents\TextAniendments�,200b0828Abgregation-Orditiaiice.doc Page 5 of 5